Well, what they say:

> If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves).

That's a very strained reading of the LGPL, but the way the LGPL is written, they must provide a way for customers to updgrade the LIVE555 code used to whatever version they want to, including the latest version. It doesn't have to WORK, necessarily, but the ability to replace LGPL code in a work with one's own code is part of the license.

TL;DR: I think they're wrong but not so far wrong as to be crazy, and what they insist on happening is a consequence of following the terms of the LGPL (customers being able to upgrade to the latest version).

Theoretically, could you just say "the newest version of this software is licensed under the LGPL; for any other version, I retain copyright and grant no rights to it, and revoke any rights previously granted."? So it becomes an infringement of their copyright to not be running the newest version, whatever the LGPL says.

The iOS App Store disallows dynamic libraries. Libraries are statically linked into the final executable, so they're not easy to replace.

In that case, the LGPL requires you distribute source or relinkable object files.

I know a lot of folks don't (because i do M&A due diligence), but that's a very clear license violation if you don't.

(also note that IOS 8+ allows dynamic linking, but replacement may still be an issue).

As of iOS 8 you can use dynamic libraries, but the user can't replace them without invalidating the code signature for the app.